Who did more - Jesus or his publicists?

[marco]

Jesus advised his friends not to mention his miracles. But they did. Jesus hid for 30 years, then emerged into publicity and his deeds were reported by people who didn't see him. His life was attached to bits and pieces of Scripture and his forefathers could be traced back to Adam - thanks to fantastic research work.

So should we credit Jesus for Christianity or thank his publicists for doing a great job?

[Zzyzx]

.

So should we credit Jesus for Christianity or thank his publicists for doing a great job?

If publicists only reported what Jesus did and spoke,

Did Gospels and Epistles truthfully and accurately report what Jesus did and said? Did ANY of the writers have first-hand knowledge of his words and actions? If so, which ones and how can that be known.

and if Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, then I think credit should go to Jesus.

How can the ‘teachings of Jesus’ be known? They were ‘filtered through’ promoters of the new religion being developed in competition with Judaism (and tailored to appeal to Gentiles and Roman officials).

But obviously also the publicists have done important work.

Paul/Saul and cohorts deserve a lot of credit (or blame) for constructing a religion based on a dead Jewish preacher.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus hid for 30 years, then emerged into publicity and his deeds were reported by people who didn't see him.

Another way to view what we know of Jesus (from tales told)

Until he was about thirty years old Jesus was said to be a common laborer. Then he encountered John the Baptist from whom he learned the trade of preaching; and took up that vocation as more appealing than laboring. He was regarded as some (and possibly himself) as ‘the promised messiah’ (one of many wannabe messiahs of the era). This claim was rejected by Jewish people and authorities.

He evidently lasted only about three years before becoming sufficiently irritating to Jewish and Roman authorities to cause them to execute him.

After his death he was ‘deified’ by some people, including Paul/Saul and cohorts. Decades after the execution tales were written about ‘miracles’ and ‘resurrection’ – and presented to Gentiles and Roman authorities in the form of a new religion more acceptable to them than Judaism. That religion prospered after it was adopted as official state religion of the Roman empire -- and spread to Europe and beyond.

[showme]

Jesus advised his friends not to mention his miracles. But they did. Jesus hid for 30 years, then emerged into publicity and his deeds were reported by people who didn't see him. His life was attached to bits and pieces of Scripture and his forefathers could be traced back to Adam - thanks to fantastic research work.

So should we credit Jesus for Christianity or thank his publicists for doing a great job?

His description was written in Isaiah 53:2, "He has no stately form". His message was hidden by way of the parables he used, and only the blessed could "understand" (Matthew 13:16). As for his main, without a clue, publicist, the false prophet Paul, he was described as chubby, short, bald, and had a limp. From reading his copy, I would say he had a Napoleon complex. From the pain in his side, I would assume he carried a scowl. As for leading, it was only the "few" that accepted the message of Yeshua, but the "many" who follow the false prophet Paul to destruction (Matthew 7:13) It is only at the "end of the age", that Paul and his message is thrown into the fire (Matthew 13:39-42), and at that time, the rock without hands will crush all the nations (Daniel 2:35 & 44-45), and "the Word of God", will rule the Gentiles with a "rod of iron" (Revelation 19:15).

[JehovahsWitness]

So should we credit Jesus for Christianity or thank his publicists for doing a great job?

If publicists only reported what Jesus did and spoke, and if Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, then I think credit should go to Jesus. But obviously also the publicists have done important work.

I couldn't agree more. Without Jesus I dont believe there would be Christoanity, still isnt it in Romans where we read ...

ROMANS 10:13-15

...how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!�- NWT

Proof of the major role Jesus publicity agents would play in the spread of the Good News.


JW





RELATED POSTS


What are the "greater works" Jesus refered to in John 14:12?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 87#p957587

Was "Great Commission" given uniquely to the eleven Apostles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p937795

Are JEHOVAHS WITNESSES the ones that are fulfilling Mat 24:14?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 48#p897648




FURTHER READING All True Christians Are Evangelizers
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002002[/quote]

[1213]

Did Gospels and Epistles truthfully and accurately report what Jesus did and said? Did ANY of the writers have first-hand knowledge of his words and actions? If so, which ones and how can that be known.

I don’t think anything from history can really be known, it all is matter of belief and I believe disciples of Jesus reported accurately what Jesus said. But I understand if you don’t want to believe it.

How can the ‘teachings of Jesus’ be known? They were ‘filtered through’ promoters of the new religion being developed in competition with Judaism (and tailored to appeal to Gentiles and Roman officials).

Is that “‘filtered through’ promoters� just an personal opinion, which are not meaningful here according to some writers, or do you have something meaningful to support the claim?

[Zzyzx]

.

Did Gospels and Epistles truthfully and accurately report what Jesus did and said? Did ANY of the writers have first-hand knowledge of his words and actions? If so, which ones and how can that be known.

I don’t think anything from history can really be known, it all is matter of belief

Again, WWII occurred and Eisenhower was president 1953 to 1961 are NOT ‘a matter of belief’

and I believe disciples of Jesus reported accurately what Jesus said.

Your belief is not of any merit in debate -- but is a common error in Apologetics.

But I understand if you don’t want to believe it.

What I ‘believe’ is of no merit in debate. What I cite as supporting evidence is legitimate part of debate.

1. Identity of Gospel writers is unknown to and/or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians
2. It has not been established that writers were eyewitnesses to the conversations and events
3. Gospels were written decades or generations after the supposed words and actions
4. There is no assurance that Gospels accurately and truthfully reported words attributed to Jesus

This is ‘countered’ with “Well, I believe them�

How can the ‘teachings of Jesus’ be known? They were ‘filtered through’ promoters of the new religion being developed in competition with Judaism (and tailored to appeal to Gentiles and Roman officials).

Is that “‘filtered through’ promoters� just an personal opinion, which are not meaningful here according to some writers, or do you have something meaningful to support the claim?

There are no known writings from Jesus. Everything we ‘know’ about his teaching was reported by others. Humans are not tape recorders that produce a direct record of what was said. Instead, second-hand (or more) accounts reflect what people hear (correctly or incorrectly), how well they remember exact words of the original, their own thoughts and word choices, etc.

Thus, anything reported as ‘He said’ has been ‘filtered through’ another person.

[marco]

His description was written in Isaiah 53:2, "He has no stately form". His message was hidden by way of the parables he used, and only the blessed could "understand" (Matthew 13:16).

This is one of those airy predictions from an old astrologer and it might apply to Cyrano de Bergerac or Otto Von Bismarck or maybe Ivan the Terrible. Is there a footnote that tells people he was referring to the unborn Jesus?


I am happy to be "blessed" then, since I have no trouble understanding the parables.


We must remember there were no recording instruments so the words of Jesus were composed by later authors. Of course they may well be good approximations.

[marco]

I think Jesus would be astonished at the stories written about him well after he was dead and gone. He probably would not recognise them as having anything to do with him. It was his publicists who created the faith, not Jesus, imo.

He would be flattered, too, at being considered co-equal with Yahweh. He didn't tell Thomas, who said: "MY Lord and my God" to wash his mouth out. He is painted as anything from a lamb to a lion; he's a cuddly baby and a weeping victim. But he is invariably a handsome Western guy, who was obviously into gymnastics.

Later painters and publicists have added some interesting details. Hymn writers might make us weep:

"Long long I've waited here (in an empty church)
And though thou heedst not me;
The heart of God's own Son,
Beats ever on for thee."

[marco]

If publicists only reported what Jesus did and spoke, and if Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, then I think credit should go to Jesus. But obviously also the publicists have done important work.

But they did not hear what Jesus said: they wrote down approximations. Their words magnified the Lord whereas Jesus, in hiding almost all his life, drew a cloak over himself.

If Shakespeare wrote beautiful words for Hamlet to say, then Shakespeare -not Hamlet - deserves the honour. When somebody says dead people threw aside their soil and rose from their graves and walked to Jerusalem Christ has nothing to do with the narrative. Christ derives his technicolour from later scribes.